Quality of Environmental Texts Found Uneven

Environmental education textbooks and other materials are uneven in
quality, and some focus too much on inspiring students' concern for
environmental problems rather than building fact-based knowledge, a
panel of scientists and academics has found.

But despite heated debate in recent years about biased materials
coming to schools from groups advocating one environmental position or
other, the group found no relationship between the quality or accuracy
of environmental education materials and the type of organization that
sponsored or produced them.

In a report released here last week on its 18 months of work, not
only did the Independent Commission on Environmental Education find
some materials worthy of praise, it also affirmed that the increasingly
popular subject "is important and should be taught in America's
schools."

That conclusion alone was a relief to some in the environmental
education field who said that they had worried about findings from a
panel they considered to have politically conservative origins.

"When they talk about the need for environmental education to be
unbiased and based on sound science, I agree wholeheartedly," said
Richard Wilke, the associate dean of the college of natural resources
at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

The self-appointed commission was convened by the George C. Marshall
Institute in Washington, a not-for-profit research group founded in
1984 to study national-security technology, including the Reagan
administration's strategic-defense initiative.

The panel's 10 members include one college-level environmental
educator as well as physicists, an economist, and experts in risk
assessment, energy, and forest policy.

The panelists reviewed 71 books, pamphlets, or supplementary
materials for grades K-12 in order to compile the report, "Are We
Building Environmental Literacy?" They selected materials that were
either widely used or recommended by authoritative sources.

'Serious Flaws'

Among its findings, the panel says that environmental education
materials often fail to build students' critical-thinking skills so
that they can deal with controversial issues. And the materials often
fail to help students understand trade-offs that must be made in
addressing environmental issues, it says.

Factual errors, the report says, are common in many of the
materials. High school environmental-science texts have "serious
flaws," it says, with some giving superficial coverage of science and
others mixing science and advocacy.

One book cited a figure for deforestation more than twice that of
the most reliable figure from the United Nations, the panel found.
Another book named a number for U.S. oil production that was incorrect
by a factor of 10. Environmental Science, Working With the
Earth, a 1995 textbook adopted in Texas and other states, defines
"Earth wisdom" by quoting a radical environmentalist saying, "Madmen
and madwomen are wrecking this ... Earth."

The commission recommends that scientific and educational
organizations consult with scientists, economists, and other experts
before the groups suggest materials. Textbook-adoption committees and
others responsible for selecting materials should do the same, it
says.

Publishers, too, must bear responsibility for what appears in
materials that carry their names, the panel says, and must improve
their peer-review process for materials. In addition, it says, teachers
need better preparation to teach the subject.

Generally, errors in textbooks are corrected quickly in the next
edition, said Richard Blake, the vice president of the school division
at the Association of American Publishers in New York City. The major
publishers, at least, have "pretty elaborate fact-checking systems," he
said.

Standards Due Soon

The commission is not alone in trying to improve environmental
education. The Washington-based North American Association for
Environmental Education last fall issued guidelines for creating and
selecting good materials and expects in June to issue its standards for
what students should know and be able to do.

Last week, commission members denied the charge that the panel
itself had an anti-environmental education bias.

Some of the foundations that put up the $300,000 to $400,000 for the
report have a history of supporting such conservative groups as the
American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, two
Washington think tanks.

Jeffrey T. Salmon, the executive director of the Marshall Institute,
said other well-known foundations declined to support the project.

"We certainly did not promise any kind of political slant" to
funders, commission Chairman Robert L. Sproull, an emeritus president
and professor of physics at the University of Rochester, told reporters
at a press conference here last week.

The report could actually have a "calming effect" on the storm of
controversy in the field, said Edward McCrea, the executive director of
the NAAE.

"When a group that is this conservative and has the strong academic
credentials that they have still basically comes out positive about
environmental education," Mr. McCrea said, "it would probably give some
of the critics a reason to reconsider their opposition."

For More Information:

Copies of "Are We Building Environmental Literacy?'' are available
as of this week for $12.50 each. A copy of the review of materials is
$2.50. Both prices include shipping. Call or write the Independent
Commission on Environmental Education, 1730 K Street N.W., Suite 905,
Washington, D.C. 20006; (800) 992-0671.

By
Millicent Lawton

Web Only

Web Resources

Promoting
Environmental Education, a handbook for grades K-12 from the Acorn
Naturalists, was sponsored by the National Wildlife Federation, the
North American Association for Environmental Education and the National
Association of Conservation Districts.